• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CCS

Banned
adam387 said:
We're so off topic but I make a great alchy milkshake. Chocolate ice cream, dark chocolate liqueur, peanut butter vodka ,a spoonful of natural peanut butter and some chocolate milk.
Click to expand...

Too much chocolate :p

I'll stick to strawberry milk, strawberry ice cream, and southern comfort, which is delicious as all hell.
 
E

East Lake

Member
Here's what an actual conspiracy theory might look like.

Trade union leaders in the United States have said they are suing the soft-drinks company Coca-Cola for allegedly hiring right-wing death squads to terrorise workers at its Colombian bottling plant.

A spokesman for Coca-Cola in Atlanta said its Colombian bottling plants were run by business partners and denied any wrongdoing by the company.

The suit alleges that Coca-Cola and Panamerican Beverages, its principal bottler in Latin America, waged what union leaders describe as a campaign of terror, using paramilitaries to kill, torture and kidnap union leaders in Colombia.

In a 66-page complaint presented at a news conference in Bogota, Sinaltrainal alleges that Coca-Cola bears indirect responsibility for the killing of Isidro Segundo Gil, a union leader shot dead on 5 December 1996.

The plaintiffs will cite the Alien Tort Claims Act, a centuries-old law which allows foreigners to sue US companies for damages caused abroad.

More than 50 union leaders have been killed in Colombia this year, 128 last year and more than 1,500 in the past 10 years, according to the complaint.

Sinaltrainal represents 2,300 food workers in Colombia including 500 employees at plants where Coca-Cola is bottled.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1448962.stm (2001)

A little flashback, with some ominous music.

BOGOTA, Colombia -- A former contractor for the U.S.-based coal company Drummond Co. has been convicted of murder and sentenced to nearly 38 years in prison as the mastermind of the 2001 killing of two union leaders.

The trial judge also ordered prosecutors to investigate Drummond's U.S.-based president and three former employees to determine whether they might also be responsible.

The killings are the subject of a U.S. lawsuit and have drawn considerable attention because several witnesses, including the convicted man, Jaime Blanco, allege senior managers of Alabama-based Drummond ordered them.
Click to expand...
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/02/murder_conviction_in_drummond.html (2013)

Who owns Drummond? Goldman Sachs. You know who won't release their Goldman Sachs speeches? Hillary Clinton.

What about Barack you might say.

Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, testified to that claim at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on legislation to grant President Barack Obama so-called fast-track authority to cut at least two new enormous trade agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union. It appears to be the first time anyone has revealed such a stance on the part of a U.S. government that has been touting its efforts to improve wages and working conditions among its trading partners, relying in part on trade agreements.

But Trumka charged that the labor standards included in those trade deals are poorly enforced, and that before he would back the White House’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, he wanted to see tougher labor provisions that could be enforced.

“When you say, ‘Oh these are some standards, they’re better than no standards,’ we were told by by the [United States Trade Representative] general counsel that murdering a trade unionist doesn’t violate these standards, that perpetuating violence against a trade unionist doesn’t violate these agreements,” Trumka said, directing his remarks to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who backs the deals.

Trumka pointed specifically to the Colombia trade pact that was signed in 2006, but passed by Congress in 2011. Trumka said that even after the Obama administration crafted an agreement to tighten labor protections four years ago, some 105 labor organizers have been killed, and more than 1,300 have been threatened with death.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/fast-track-trade_n_7113412.html

The Queen has blood on her hands.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
East Lake said:
You weren't even finishing your sentences. Conspiracy theory is an upgrade to your posting. And to be clear, I posted two academic studies, and three extra links and you haven't demonstrated that you read any of them. Now's the time to start!
Click to expand...

Don't know if those were attempts at insults or anything, but okay lol. Also I am aware of the issues in Haiti because I read something similar a few years, but I got of it was broken promises, some forms of incompetence, and failures. None of your articles even hinted that Hillary actually did anything besides getting the parties together to get agreements. You are doing the same thing I accused you of.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Black Mamba said:
I'm fairly certain Chichikov hates everything. Like, I've never seen him compliment any movie, show, game, book, etc. It's his shtick!
Click to expand...
You Tolkien fans just can't believe it's possible to not like Lord of The Rings...

And I love The People vs OJ Simpsons, you all should be watching it.
Happy now?
 
E

East Lake

Member
Abinash117 said:
Don't know if those were attempts at insults or anything, but okay lol. Also I am aware of the issues in Haiti because I read something similar a few years, but I got of it was broken promises, some forms of incompetence, and failures. None of your articles even hinted that Hillary actually did anything besides getting the parties together to get agreements. You are doing the same thing I accused you of.
Click to expand...
They're remarkably competent in doing the opposite of their stated goals.

A plane carrying Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide has taken off from South Africa —ending his seven years in exile—despite President Obama's bid to keep the hugely popular but controversial figure away from his homeland until it holds presidential election this weekend.
Click to expand...

Aristide took no questions before heading to his chartered plane.
"We can't hold him hostage if he wants to go," South African Cabinet Minister Collins Chabane was quoted as saying earlier Thursday, noting Haiti's government had delivered Aristide's diplomatic passport last month.
Click to expand...

Aristide, a former slum priest, was twice elected president of Haiti and remains wildly popular among the Caribbean nation's majority poor.
Click to expand...

Obama was concerned enough about Aristide's possibly destabilizing influence to call South African President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday and discuss the matter, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Associated Press. A Zuma spokesman had no comment, saying he was unaware of the call.

"The United States, along with others in the international community, has deep concerns that President Aristide's return to Haiti in the closing days of the election could be destabilizing," Vietor said. "President Obama reiterated ... his belief that the Haitian people deserve the chance to choose their government through peaceful, free, and fair elections March 20."

At the airport Thursday, South Africa's foreign minister said Zuma had wished Aristide "bon voyage and safe landing in his country of birth."

Aides say Aristide, Haiti's first democratically elected president, fears the winner of Sunday's vote might block his return. In the past, both candidates had opposed Aristide. Now, both Michel Martelly and Mirlande Manigat stress his right to return as a Haitian citizen under the constitution. Both candidates would want to attract votes from followers of the Lavalas Family party of which Aristide still is president.
Click to expand...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-17-aristide-haiti-return_N.htm

This morning, as political and financial leaders from around the world convene at the World Economic Forum, one of the central issues under discussion will be a strategy for Haiti’s recovery. Bill Clinton and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have both advocated a Marshall Plan for Haiti whose goal would be to “restart private activity, rebuilding businesses and encouraging guarantees for the banking sector.”

However, this kind of Western involvement in Haitian affairs represents the same approach that has been imposed on the country for more than twenty years. These policies have done nothing but perpetuate Haiti as the most impoverished nation in the Western hemisphere and as a source of cheap labor for American companies. If Haiti is to make a successful recovery the first step must be for Western leaders to acknowledge their role in the political and economic earthquake that residents of the island nation have suffered for decades, long before the ground gave way beneath them.

Since 1990 there have been two US-supported military coups, a series of economic “readjustments” at the behest of the World Bank, and a US corporate trade bill that have all served to return the former slave population to economic serfdom. Up until the earthquake on January 12, two-thirds of Haiti’s exports were apparel products contracted by multinational companies such as K-Mart, Wal-Mart and the Walt Disney Company. And while the Magic Kingdom was stocked with goods made in Haitian sweatshops, 80% of the residents lived below the poverty line and earned less than $2 a day.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-michael-johnson/haitis-political-and-econ_b_438160.html
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Officerrob said:
You know it's a slow news day when Morning Joe starts with 10 minutes on the size of Bernie's crowds
Click to expand...

Wow, my brain did not finish that statement with the words you typed.

I need to go back to bed. I started a new medicine and my sleeping pattern is messed up.

Thanks Obamacare.
 
N

noshten

Member
Thanks for the links East, will check em out later.
Hills is worse than corrupt, she probably believes she is above corruption, above the system that surrounds her. She didn't think it's problematic to go out and give speaches before running for president, she didn't think it was a problem to accept donations from the private prison industry until being called out on it, now she doesn't realize that Greenpeace have been asking the same question for months and instead of addressing it she attacks Sanders. She is failing to address her issues in a meaningful way. Attacking Sanders, invoking 9/11, hiding behind capitalism are not the type of answers that people are looking for and would likely lead to more people having unfavorable view of her.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Las7 said:
Thanks for the links East, will check em out later.
Hills is worse than corrupt, she probably believes she is above corruption, above the system that surrounds her. She didn't think it's problematic to go out and give speaches before running for president, she didn't think it was a problem to accept donations from the private prison industry until being called out on it, now she doesn't realize that Greenpeace have been asking the same question for months and instead of addressing it she attacks Sanders. She is failing to address her issues in a meaningful way. Attacking Sanders, invoking 9/11, hiding behind capitalism are not the type of answers that people are looking for and would likely lead to more people having unfavorable view of her.
Click to expand...

See this is the exact hyperbole that's so frustrating, now she's not just corrupt but worse than corrupt!!!!

And you're arguments are she got paid to speak, she criticized Sanders and she stopped taking money from private prisons and donated said money to help victims of the prison system after listening to activists... you know the opposite of corrupt.

The Greenpeace question is a joke, the donations came from people working in those industries, people in those industries have also donated to Sanders.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
See this is the exact hyperbole that's so frustrating, now she's not just corrupt but worse than corrupt!!!!

And you're arguments are she got paid to speak, she criticized Sanders and she stopped taking money from private prisons and donated said money to help victims of the prison system after listening to activists... you know the opposite of corrupt.

The Greenpeace question is a joke, the donations came from people working in those industries, people in those industries have also donated to Sanders.
Click to expand...

And if Bernie's campaign kept accurate records, we'd know that.....
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Random side note remember when someone claimed to hear from an anon insider Dem that Clinton was going to go full on Red scare on Sanders and everyone was circling the wagons hating her before she even did the thing....

And what happened? Or right nothing because that shit never happened. See folks that would be attacking Sanders....
 
U

User 463088

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
Random side note remember when someone claimed to hear from an anon insider Dem that Clinton was going to go full on Red scare on Sanders and everyone was circling the wagons hating her before she even did the thing....

And what happened? Or right nothing because that shit never happened. See folks that would be attacking Sanders....
Click to expand...

There's a reason no one would hire me as a strategist. I'd bring a nuke to a knife fight.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
It's also the right call not to go after him on that shit because it's childish and stupid

Which is my point.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. If I was on the Clinton team, though, I would have hit harder against Bernie on a few things. I wouldn't have let him get away with some of the "artful smears." I get why they did it (because it didn't really matter) but I still would have hit and hit hard. Probably not on the "Bernie's a commie" stuff but definitely on a few other things.
 
N

noshten

Member
excelsiorlef said:
See this is the exact hyperbole that's so frustrating, now she's not just corrupt but worse than corrupt!!!!

And you're arguments are she got paid to speak, she criticized Sanders and she stopped taking money from private prisons and donated said money to help victims of the prison system after listening to activists... you know the opposite of corrupt.

The Greenpeace question is a joke, the donations came from people working in those industries, people in those industries have also donated to Sanders.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm accused of hyperbole but Greenpeace activists were attacked by Clinton instead of having their questions taken seriously. My opinion is of far less importance than Clinton's actions. In this very thread people were attacking Greenpeace for questioning their Queen.

I am an individual who deeply cares about tackling climate change and I’m deeply concerned about the state of our democracy. I work for Greenpeace USA as a Democracy Organizer. I do not work for and am in no way affiliated with the Sanders campaign, as Clinton seemed to suggest in her response.

Greenpeace USA along with 20 organizations launched the pledge to #FixDemocracy, asking ALL presidential candidates to reject future fossil fuel contributions, champion campaign finance reform and defend the right to vote for all.

When we launched the campaign, Sanders signed the pledge immediately. Hillary’s campaign responded, but did not sign. Unsurprisingly, the Republican presidential candidates who won’t even admit that climate change is real, while real communities on the frontlines are already impacted, did not respond to our request.

While Greenpeace appreciated Hillary’s response, the first step a candidate can take to stop fossil fuels is to stop taking fossil fuel money. That money matters when we hear great things about climate in Clinton’s speeches, but want to be sure she’ll truly listen to the people when she is in office. For instance, she supports a Department of Justice investigation of ExxonMobil and yet she takes money from an Exxon lobbyist. That level of coziness makes voters like me who prioritize climate change uncomfortable.

To prove to people that she’s really serious about keeping fossil fuels in the ground, she needs to stop taking that money today.

Today, I said to Hillary, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?” I was genuinely shocked by her response. But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to Fix our Democracy. Rejecting fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.

Greenpeace, 350 Action, and dozens of concerned activists have been attending events, rallies, debates, and fundraisers for many months asking Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. This is by no means the first time that we asked Hillary Clinton the question. In fact, last night, over 40 activists gathered outside of a Hillary Clinton Fundraiser at the Dakota, asking Senator Clinton to come out and talk to the people she is fighting for. She did not cross the street to talk to us.

To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign.

If she takes the pledge, she’ll be sending a strong signal to our country and fossil fuel companies that it’s time to #Keepitintheground, not for the future of our planet, but for people that are living on it.

On April 18th in Washington DC, thousands of activists from groups like Public Citizen, the NAACP and Communications Workers of America will take action in an event called the Democracy Awakening to call on our leaders to get the big money out of politics, restore voting rights, and prioritize building a strong and healthy democracy. I’ll be there and I hope you’ll be standing beside me so that candidates like Hillary Clinton can’t ignore us any longer.

I hope that this video starts an important dialogue on the national scale about fixing our democracy and taking a stand against corporate interests like the fossil fuel industry, so we can run a democracy that is beholden to the people, not campaign contributions.

Thank you,

Eva Resnick-Day
Democracy Organizer
Greenpeace USA
Click to expand...

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/im-th...tributions-at-the-purchase-ny-campaign-rally/
 
M

Maledict

Member
It's like the far left *wants* to throw this election by disarming for no reason.

Has Hilary Clinton acted like she's in thrall to the fossil fuels industry? No.

Has Obama? No, despite the pressure placed on him too during the 2008 campaign and subsequently.

This notion that money in politics is the single problem facing america and if you solve that everything will be fine is ridiculous. Greenpeace should be advocating for better policies, not who takes money from what industry.
 
N

noshten

Member
Maledict said:
It's like the far left *wants* to throw this election by disarming for no reason.

Has Hilary Clinton acted like she's in thrall to the fossil fuels industry? No.

Has Obama? No, despite the pressure placed on him too during the 2008 campaign and subsequently.

This notion that money in politics is the single problem facing america and if you solve that everything will be fine is ridiculous. Greenpeace should be advocating for better policies, not who takes money from what industry.
Click to expand...

The notion that money in politics effects all other issues is not a profoundly radical one.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Las7 said:
The notion that money in politics effects all other issues is not a profoundly radical one.
Click to expand...

The notion that this is what Greenpeace should be advocating on is.

Sorry, but there's honest to gods real policy issues that should be debated and discussed on the environment, and attacking one of the people who in their own words has been a supporter of good climate change policy is bloody stupid.

It is the left eating itself, a sadly all too often appearance.

Get back to me when Greenpeace start turning up at Trumps and Cruz's rallies and attacking them on policy. We all know they won't because it's easier to attack your friends than your foes, and requires a lot less.
 
N

noshten

Member
Maledict said:
The notion that this is what Greenpeace should be advocating on is.

Sorry, but there's honest to gods real policy issues that should be debated and discussed on the environment, and attacking one of the people who in their own words has been a supporter of good climate change policy is bloody stupid.

It is the left eating itself, a sadly all too often appearance.

Get back to me when Greenpeace start turning up at Trumps and Cruz's rallies and attacking them on policy. We all know they won't because it's easier to attack your friends than your foes, and requires a lot less.
Click to expand...

You sound like the Bernie supporters who said BLM shouldn't be protesting his events and should be focusing on the GOP candidates.
 
K

kmag

Member
Maledict said:
Nope. Governing is the art of compromise, and I would rather have a majority including the blue dogs than a minority including only the pure.
Click to expand...

The thing is with Sanders supporters, there's only ever one pure one. The list of progressives flung under the bus lately is impressive. Al Frankin was getting it earlier this week.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Las7 said:
You sound like the Bernie supporters who said BLM shouldn't be protesting his events and should be focusing on the GOP candidates.
Click to expand...

BLM were protesting on *policy*.

Sorry but this isn't policy. This has fuck all to do with the environment, and Clinton refusing money from the fossil fuels industry won't make a single jot of difference to climate change policy. We know this from her policies and Obama's policies. It is nothing but a continual campaign that insinuates she is corrupt without any basis or fact in reality, that actually distracts from the REAL issues at hand.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Maledict said:
It's like the far left *wants* to throw this election by disarming for no reason
Click to expand...
I say the same thing to myself every day.

I don't know if it's being far left or just ignorant. It's like these people don't want to come down from their cloud and realize how disastrous a Republican presidency would be...
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Atomic Playboy said:
If that's what you were after, I could have just pointed you in the direction of my mother. Elderly lesbians have the worst taste in fashion, movies, music, food... basically everything. There's a difference between being old and out of touch and young and joyless. It makes me sad to see someone who can't understand the glory of eating pizza, drinking beer and binging on Game of Thrones.
Click to expand...

Which is worse: a person that doesnt partake in any of that... or a person that eats pineapple pizza with ketchup and mayo, drinks light beer and binges on Arrow?

Joy is a dangerous thing, my friend.

Chichikov said:
You Tolkien fans just can't believe it's possible to not like Lord of The Rings...
Click to expand...

Well, tolkien fans are not exactly known for being big on imagination.
 
R

royalan

Member
Maledict said:
BLM were protesting on *policy*.

Sorry but this isn't policy. This has fuck all to do with the environment, and Clinton refusing money from the fossil fuels industry won't make a single jot of difference to climate change policy. We know this from her policies and Obama's policies. It is nothing but a continual campaign that insinuates she is corrupt without any basis or fact in reality, that actually distracts from the REAL issues at hand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This tackles or addresses no real issues at hand. It's a damn purity test, and it's stupid. This is WHY Democrats are getting beaten by Republicans at all levels of government.
 
D

dramatis

Member
I'm late to the party because I actually sleep—don't you guys ever do the same.

Las7 said:
Thanks for the links East, will check em out later.
Hills is worse than corrupt, she probably believes she is above corruption, above the system that surrounds her. She didn't think it's problematic to go out and give speaches before running for president, she didn't think it was a problem to accept donations from the private prison industry until being called out on it, now she doesn't realize that Greenpeace have been asking the same question for months and instead of addressing it she attacks Sanders. She is failing to address her issues in a meaningful way. Attacking Sanders, invoking 9/11, hiding behind capitalism are not the type of answers that people are looking for and would likely lead to more people having unfavorable view of her.
Click to expand...
So, here's the fundamental problem I find with "Hills is worse than corrupt": Suppose she is literally worse than corrupt. Then what stops Hillary from turning against precisely those corporate donors? Because they are giving this incredibly corrupt and disgusting person money, they expect said person of significant character issues to listen to them? Or is it not possible for her to simply take their money and use it for issues that they are opposed to?

There's also a bit of irony in thinking that Hillary is the one who thinks she is above corruption. The example shown by Bernie Sanders right now is that he himself has been snared by the promise of power. Doesn't he believe he is above corruption and above the system that surrounds him, while eagerly capitalizing on the resources of the Democratic party for his senate runs and for his presidential run? Doesn't he want to stay in the race, continue taking poor people's money, and giving them false hope of being able to reach the White House? Such a man, who is now out for himself and no one else, not even the 'political revolution' he shouts about—is such a man to be viewed favorably?

People are not cartoon villains. We can tease Trump, Cruz, Romney, McCain, Bush, and so on—but I highly doubt we would absolutely claim to know them half as intimately as you and those like you claim to know Hillary Clinton. In the end, your arguments always boil down to some 'opinion' you have about how unlikeable Hillary is—and that's fine. But your opinion, after all, is not proof of corruption.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Sanders' answer about the media wasting time on Trump comments as opposed to the way Hillary is taking advantage of Trump's abortion comments to direct back at Trump and the entire GOP proves that Sanders has the WRONG approach on firing back at Trump or the GOP

he is complaining about the media making a big deal about Trump comments on a divisive policy issue? Sanders is not fit to be nominee. Cerebral analytical Dukakissing

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-hits-trump-another-stupid-remark-655515715634

Sanders doesn't want to talk about Trump on abortion and wants to hear him talk about minimum wage instead?
 
N

noshten

Member
Maledict said:
BLM were protesting on *policy*.

Sorry but this isn't policy. This has fuck all to do with the environment, and Clinton refusing money from the fossil fuels industry won't make a single jot of difference to climate change policy. We know this from her policies and Obama's policies. It is nothing but a continual campaign that insinuates she is corrupt without any basis or fact in reality, that actually distracts from the REAL issues at hand.
Click to expand...

Right it's not about policy - except for the instances where she is challenged on her commitment to environmental issues. Do you honestly want me to start posting articles of climate scientists, environmental advocates and activists challenging her policy because I can.
 
D

Drek

Member
East Lake said:
You weren't even finishing your sentences. Conspiracy theory is an upgrade to your posting. And to be clear, I posted two academic studies, and three extra links and you haven't demonstrated that you read any of them. Now's the time to start!
Click to expand...
Your first link (the Princton study) is a theoretical assessment that doesn't do the due diligence to make it into anything more than interesting. A few key flaws:
1. It presumes public polling matches 1:1 with good policy. The jobs of politicians isn't just to give people what they want, it is to give people what they need and what would best serve the nation even if the general populous disagrees.

By their standard the ACA was a case of politicians serving special interests as public opinion has generally been against ACA. Yet somehow millions of people now have affordable healthcare because of it and healthcare billing practices have been improved...

2. As for the second paper (by the Roosevelt Institute): of course large corporations make up the majority of political campaign finance. We all know this. This existed before Citizen's United and has only grown since. Unless you can show where campaign contributions have led to Clinton giving favors however I'm dubious as to the relevance of this link. In fact, the paper linked is from the 2012 election cycle and goes into detail on the surprising (to them I guess) amount of corporate support Obama had. What favors did that buy? Did substantial financial support to his 2008 campaign from the financial sector buy Obama's bias on Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Act (the answer is a resounding "NO")? Money in politics is a problem but money in politics isn't the problem at the presidential level. POTUS candidates, especially Democrat POTUS candidates, are far more focused on personal legacy than financial gain. The money in politics problem is at the local, state, and house levels where a million dollars can make a huge difference and where politicians can much more easily hide.

The solution to this is not a campaign finance "purity pledge" by those on the left but instead legitimate reforms that start with the SCOTUS, allowing for a challenge to and refutation of Citizen's United in a future hearing. In brief the Dems can't refuse special interest money until they get legislation forcing everyone to refuse it, otherwise the GOP will continue to dominate state houses and Congress while they pass progressively more and more corrupt campaign financial "laws".

Fighting fire with fire is a political reality.

As for the three Haiti related articles, they're he said/she said nonsense.

1. The suggestion that Hillary Clinton had direct influence on her husband's oversight of Haitian assistance is laughable. The State Dept. was obviously involved (as it would be with any Sec. of State) and assisted in constructing deals to theoretically improve the economy, but that is well within the standard purview of the position. No proof of political favoritism evident. Meanwhile Bill Clinton's efforts in Haiti have not worked out well, but then neither have the efforts of any other assistance attempt in Haiti post-earthquake. Red Cross for example has effectively wasted almost all the charitable contributions they've received.

2. The merit of the argument in the second article hinges entirely on the belief that the DR and Nicaragua were also going to implement similar increases in minimum wage laws. As the U.S. based powers involved likely knew the corporate stances on those wage increases (i.e. if they happen we're leaving) and the fact that a job paying $0.31 an hour is better than no job, it isn't exactly a cut and dry situation of supporting corporations over the opinions of the citizenry present. Lets not forget that Haiti elected and generally loves Aristide, who's policies were a huge part in leading to country into the economic ruin it experiences today. Their government has made bad choice after bad choice for decades.

3. As for the merits of rice subsidies in the U.S., I would just have to ask how much you think one nation should be beholden to the well-being of another. Arkansas is, relative to the U.S., an economically poor state that is not a viable competitor with the corn belt on soy and corn production. That is what their alternative would be if the rice subsidies were removed however, as there is greater market demand in the U.S. for corn and soy. The U.S. is a major food exporter around the world and depressing U.S. rice prices might hurt some countries but it does lower the cost of food globally, what could easily be argued as a net gain. Clinton obviously feels remorse about this as the impact of the subsidy is obvious in Haiti, but even his own feelings of guilt ignores just how many people have been fed thanks to U.S. rice subsidies.

What you're doing is shitposting, just shitposting via links instead of making the arguments yourself.

Las7 said:
Hey I'm accused of hyperbole but Greenpeace activists were attacked by Clinton instead of having their questions taken seriously. My opinion is of far less importance than Clinton's actions. In this very thread people were attacking Greenpeace for questioning their Queen.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/im-th...tributions-at-the-purchase-ny-campaign-rally/
Click to expand...

Greenpeace are:
1. Ideologues
2. Have no fucking idea what they're talking about 99.9% of the time (I say this as a geologist focused on the environmental impact of industrialization).

So her unwillingness to kowtow to their idiocy is, as far as I can see, nothing but a resounding endorsement of Clinton.
 
The Lamonster

The Lamonster

Member
gutter_trash said:
Sanders' answer about the media wasting time on Trump comments as opposed to the way Hillary is taking advantage of Trump's abortion comments to direct back at Trump and the entire GOP proves that Sanders has the WRONG approach on firing back at Trump or the GOP

he is complaining about the media making a big deal about Trump comments on a divisive policy issue? Sanders is not fit to be nominee. Cerebral analytical Dukakissing

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-hits-trump-another-stupid-remark-655515715634

Sanders doesn't want to talk about Trump on abortion and wants to hear him talk about minimum wage instead?
Click to expand...

He has this weird pause at the beginning of this interview...it's off-putting.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
royalan said:
Exactly. This tackles or addresses no real issues at hand. It's a damn purity test, and it's stupid. This is WHY Democrats are getting beaten by Republicans at all levels of government.
Click to expand...

Which completely ignores that republicans have become massively successful at the local level while pushing consistently more Xtreem Purity candidates, but hey.
 
D

Drek

Member
Coriolanus said:
Which completely ignores that republicans have become massively successful at the local level while pushing consistently more Xtreem Purity candidates, but hey.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke post?

I hope it's a joke post.

When your ideology is "fuck y'alls, I got mine" and "corporations are people my friend" it's really easy to pass a purity test while taking money from anyone and everyone willing to give it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom